Illegal Immigrants and Gun Ownership

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since they are basic, natural, "Creator given" rights, how can they only apply to American citizens?

Applies to them in their country, not ours. Let illegals have guns, eh? Ok. One, then two, then four, etc. Now you have an armed body of foreign nationals within our borders.

That certainly seems like string of what ifs drawn out to a very distant and unlikely conclusion. But hey, give an inch and they will take another inch. Those inches add up. However improbable, it still remains possible. And that possibility is unacceptable.


-T.
 
From what I have read of the debates over the framing of amendments, the term "the people" refers to citizens, whereas if they wish to include aliens they use the word "person". In UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, the SCOTUS said that:

""the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

The idea that the RKBA is a natural right and therefore every person has it doesn't seem to hold up. I think the right to self-defense is a natural right and there is no law against illegal aliens acting in self-defense. But the RKBA seems to be a different matter.
 
:what: Only citizen's of the U.S. are entitled to these constitutional protection's, and I interpet it thusly; Yes illegal alien's also have a God given right to buy and bear arms, but in my country it's a constitutionally protected God given right and therefore I feel compelled to restrict your illegal fingers from exercising your God given right's because you're not citizen's of my country and therefore have no constitutional protections to exercise your God given rights...:neener::neener::neener:
 
They are criminals. Any time they are found out, they should get deported. If an illegal tries to buy a gun, the dealer should call the police or INS.

If I see a wanted child molester reading a newspaper at a bus stop, I'm calling the police and having him arrested. It's not a violation of his 1A rights to read the newspaper. It really has nothing to do with that. What if the wanted child molester is at a political rally when someone calls that police on him? Do the police have to wait for the rally to be over before they can arrest him? Would pulling him out of the rally in handcuffs be infringing his 1A rights? Of course not. Same with having an illegal trying to buy a gun. Or a car, or opne a bank account, or anything else. He's a criminal, have him arrested and deported.

To me it has nothing to do with the 2A. It has everything to do with getting criminals who don't belong here out.
 
1. As an American citizen and firearm owner my God given right to bear arms may be restricted by the laws of other sovereign nations, so the reverse would also hold true.

To me that does not work from a logical standpoint. The US basically was founded on "Here are some basic rights. Whether other countries recognize those rights does not matter, but we recognize them."

The way other countries treat their citizens, visitors, immigrants, etc. should not have bearing on the rights that our country recognizes.
 
Are you equating illegal immigration with speeding and seatbelt violations? Hmmm... alright. Let's just give 'em a ticket and send them on their way.

In reality it is just like that, except there is no ticket. When the Border Patrol catches someone, 90+% of the time that person is fingerprinted and returned to the border to walk back across to Mexico within a few hours. We basically send them on their way to try again tomorrow. If they aren't from Mexico they get put in a detention facility until our tax dollars pay for a ticket to put them on a plane to their home country.
 
The idea that the RKBA is a natural right and therefore every person has it doesn't seem to hold up. I think the right to self-defense is a natural right and there is no law against illegal aliens acting in self-defense. But the RKBA seems to be a different matter.

This is what I'm getting at. Once again, I don't know the answer, but to me if it is a natural right it applies to all people. If it only applies to Americans, it isn't a natural right. But I hear all the time that the 2nd didn't create or grant a right, it protected a right that already existed.
 
The way other countries treat their citizens, visitors, immigrants, etc. should not have bearing on the rights that our country recognizes.

No, it should not. Doesn't even factor actually.

My wife came here with her mother when she was 8 years old. They busted their asses to do it right. Jumped through hoops I can't even imagine for years. THEY can own guns.

But... come here illegally, and you deserve nothing except a solid boot back across the border to wherever you came from. To grant illegals the same consideration as my wife and her mother is insulting and disgusting to them, me, and every immigrant who chose to obey our laws.


-T.
 
Yes.

Owning a gun is not a crime. Using a gun in a crime is a crime.
If you believe that gun ownership isn't a crime, it shouldn't be a crime for ANYONE.

If it's a natural, G-d given right, it's a right for those in this country, illegally, breaking the law by being here.
 
...but to me if it is a natural right it applies to all people. If it only applies to Americans, it isn't a natural right.

As pointed out earlier, the PROTECTION applies only to Americans (or immigrants granted legal resident status). My rights are protected. An illegals rights are not, and therefore subject to infringement.

Why infringe, you may ask. Among other things, to protect our sovereignty. But also as an incentive. Do it legal, or you better not do it at all.


-T.
 
Yes.

Owning a gun is not a crime. Using a gun in a crime is a crime.
If you believe that gun ownership isn't a crime, it shouldn't be a crime for ANYONE.

If it's a natural, G-d given right, it's a right for those in this country, illegally, breaking the law by being here.

I can actualy agree with that ideologicly.
Just like I can agree with a desire to be illegaly armed in a foriegn nation.
I couldn't legaly be armed in most of South America, but many areas are so dangerous it would be foolish to not be armed or with people who were.

An undocumented worker living in some remote location is quite vulnerable to victimization, especialy since they are unlikely to go to the police. For that reason if I was one I might be inclined to be armed as well.

However it is hard to seperate the issue of illegals and ideology on the RKBA.
Illegals in my area pose a great risk. Most times they hit someone in a vehicle (they are not allowed to be driving or in the country) they flee the scene, leaving someone who might have survived to potentialy die. Whether pedestrian, or someone in another vehicle.
They are responsible for most of the break ins in the area, sometimes not even taking property, just food and other essentials, and other times taking anything of value they can carry.
Others are involved in serious violent crimes, involved in organized crime or gangs, or are workers living under an alias and untracable and just commit crimes of opportunity. Recently a few women were raped by them not far from here. One was stabed an unbelievable number of times and survived after picking up some day laborers to do work(they showed up to the same spot to get work a few days later and since the woman they thought they killed who played dead actualy lived and contacted police,were caught.)
Thier children are also responsible for much of the crime and graffiti even in remote locations like on rocks in the wilderness (often including racist remarks.)

Some of the nearest hospitals give awful treatment because the cost of treating numerous illegals for free has reduced thier budget so much that I am more likely to die or recieve care too late to save a body part if taken to one after an accident.
It is well known in the area that the best hospitals with the best care are either private, or ones in locations with a low illegal population.
Then of course there is schools, and other public services etc all paid for by others that they do not contribute taxes towards but do use.

The arguments on whether they are more of a contribution or a burden to society can go either way so I won't go into it. However I live with some serious effects with a large number around me. It may result in me dying or getting less capable emergency care, being victimized by undocumented people that can just disappear and use aliases, and in general having a lower quality of life.

Yet I can still understand them choosing to be armed for legitimate reasons.
I believe they should be sent back to thier country if they are here illegaly and forced to go through the same process most of the rest of the world has to go through to come here.
However I can seperate the RKBA from the right to be in this country.

That leaves me undecided.
 
But... come here illegally, and you deserve nothing except a solid boot back across the border to wherever you came from.

I agree 100%

As pointed out earlier, the PROTECTION applies only to Americans (or immigrants granted legal resident status). My rights are protected. An illegals rights are not, and therefore subject to infringement.

Are you saying that we all have the same rights, but because someone isn't American it is acceptable to infringe on their basic rights? Or do only Americans have the rights?

Forget illegals for a moment.

Do you believe without the Constitution our RKBA disappears? We have the protection you mention because the founding fathers wrote it down.

My question is, do we have the RKBA because they wrote it down, or, as many believe, did it exist before that and they were just protecting it.

The question on illegals owning guns has come up before, and it got me thinking. I, and most others, said they should not be allowed to own guns, because they were here illegally. To be honest, I agree with an earlier poster who said it wasn't an issue of RKBA, but merely a matter of the fact that they came illegally. They shouldn't be here. Full stop. No gun question necessary.

But then I see the same people who say they should not be allowed to buy guns, myself included, talking about how the RKBA is a natural right. Then I started actually thinking about what a natural right was.

Now I have started to question whether it is a natural right, or just some thing that Americans are theoretically protected against.
 
The term "Illegal" Immigrants says it all! They are not to be afforded ANY rights that the constitution gives true citizens! I put a post on here a while back entitled "which caliber for illegal immegrant uprising" and got ridiculed for a while and then the thread was shut down.(political correctness lives here). I witnessed 500,000 illegals in downtown L.A.,waving the U.S. flag upside down, flying red-white-and green versions of our flag, and holding up signs that read "we were here first, you are the illegals!" How will we defend ourselves from the ensuing riot when the time comes? I don't know about you, but I will stand my ground.
 
Are you saying that we all have the same rights, but because someone isn't American it is acceptable to infringe on their basic rights? Or do only Americans have the rights?

I speak of those who willingly and knowingly break our laws. I could see it differently if we had no legal way for foreign nationals to enter the country. But we do. Therefore, enter illegally and your are a criminal. You forfeit the protections we enjoy. The Constitution does not apply to you.

Do you believe without the Constitution our RKBA disappears? We have the protection you mention because the founding fathers wrote it down.

My question is, do we have the RKBA because they wrote it down, or, as many believe, did it exist before that and they were just protecting it.

The right is "God given", meaning it came before the framers. What they "wrote down", as you put it, is that the right is protected for The People. Illegals do not qualify for "The People" status. They are foreign nationals, a People of another nation. Again, the Constitution does not apply to them.

Now I have started to question whether it is a natural right, or just some thing that Americans are theoretically protected against.

Don't. You, I presume, are either a citizen or legal resident alien. Your natural right is protected under the Constitution. If, on the other hand, your are not in this country legally, then you are not entitled to the protection given by the Constitution. You still have the natural right, but it is subject to lawful infringement because we do not recognized you as one of "The People".

Some would say that's just wrong. But I say... if you don't like the idea of having no rights here, even natural God-given rights, then you should reconsider your decision to enter illegally, breaking our laws, and instead go through proper channels. Then you'd be entitled.


-T.
 
My point is that the 2nd amendment was established so that the people of this nation would have a means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, criminals, or outside invaders. Why would you give "invaders" the right to have a gun??? If China dropped a million un-armed paratroopers on our soil who state they are just here to work, would they have a right to keep and bear arms???

My point is, that no one in this country illegally should have the right to own a firearm (whether they are here to work or to start a war). Either way, they are "invaders"!!!
 
The constitution only pertains to Americans, and is only viable in America. Any other interpritation is invalid. Our Rights are not for wholesale rape by mexican, canadian. afghanistanni, or british refugees to adopt instantly, upon gaining illegal entry into our country.

Go to ol'Mexico with a .45 on your hip, and then try to explain to them that you have the God given right to bear arms under the U.S. constitution, as they throw you into a dungeon! Good luck!
 
When visiting another nation it is best to learn their laws and follow them.
Ignorance of the laws of the land is not a excuse in any court i have ever heard of.
The same should apply to those who are visiting here illegally.
As to Illegals becoming armed, is there really a question in the question.

Here is the basis of our border laws since the 1950's
It is illegal for anyone without a U.S. entry visa to cross the borders and enter this country. This is a federal crime. In some states along the border, it also a state crime. The second offense in federal law is a federal felony. Counterfeiting entry documents (visa, work permit -- the green card, or passport) is also a federal crime.

Now in our politically correct, social censorship society, such laws are not being enforced because someones feelings may become hurt.

While I believe that the entire world should be familiar with firearms enough to be comfortable with them, and that the whole world should be allowed to be armed for defense of their life and nation. I can not add support of illegals in our country being armed.

In my opinion, To keep our nation strong, only the citizens of the USA should have firearms in the USA. This is not racism, it is a form of nationalism, that should not be frowned upon.
I am not a Lawyer, nor do I have any legal degrees to my name.
 
Last edited:
I think that the Border Patrol should hand illegal aliens assault weapons with high capacity mags as they cross the border, then maybe congress would get off their butts and do something about the Illegal conquest of our country, which we stole from the original owners.:neener:

And before anybody gets all political on me, half of my family come from the original owners.
 
I'm surprised no one bothered looking up the law yet:

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]

Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.

Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]
 
To keep our nation strong, only the citizens of the USA should have firearms in the USA.

Speaking as an immigrant, I'd like to point out that legal permanent residents share the same burden in financing and defending this country. IMHO, they should be allowed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms just as the law does today.
 
Speaking as an immigrant, I'd like to point out that legal permanent residents share the same burden in financing and defending this country. IMHO, they should be allowed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms just as the law does today.

Absolutely! Obey our laws, benefit from our rights and protections, be entiled to be counted as one of "The People". That's right.


-T.
 
Yes. Absolutely. Might help them fight back against some of the tyranny folks here advocate against them.

Few people need firearms more than those who break immoral laws and then are forced to live underground to survive because of it.
 
Section 922g prohibits illegal aliens from possessing firearms.
Did the Natives restrict the settlers (who were the first illegal immigrants by the way)? No they did not."
Non-starter. Show me the laws that were broken by the European immigrants of the 1600s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top